Posted on 10/10/2005 11:27:38 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Misunderestimating the Furor Over Hurricane Harriet
By Chuck Muth
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 10, 2005
The White House's spinmeisters are either ignorantly misreading or intentionally mischaracterizing the general conservative opposition to Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. They continue "misunderestimating" the furor at their own peril.
It's not that conservatives think she's "unqualified." We accept the fact that one need not have been a judge to sit on the Supreme Court. We accept the fact that many a fine Justice had no judicial experience before joining SCOTUS. On the other hand, a lot of really lousy former justices had no judicial experience either.
We also accept the fact that Miers is an accomplished lawyer who won't "legislate from the bench." And we're fairly comfortable that she won't "go Souter" on us.
And it's not that she isn't "conservative." Conservatives not only accept that she's a conservative, but is most assuredly a social conservative, as well. We also accept that she's probably a very nice, but tough, lady who "has a good heart" (whatever the heck that means to one's ability to interpret the Constitution).
And it has nothing to do with the fact that she didn't come from an Ivy League school. Most of the other individuals on the short-list of nominees who would have been warmly embraced by grassroots conservative activists and leaders didn't come from Ivy League schools either. In fact, not coming from an Ivy League school is probably more in her favor among rank-and-file conservatives who are not exactly enamored with Harvard and Yale ivory-tower liberalism.
And it's not that we don't "trust" the president -- although after McCain-Feingold, Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind program, LBJ's prescription drug bill, that pork-filled highway bill, his federal Marshall Plan for New Orleans, losing his veto pen, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc., perhaps that trust should come into serious question.
And it's not that Ms. Miers is a close, personal friend to the president. Although the charge of "cronyism" is, indeed, a legitimate point, that really isn't what all the hubbub is about.
No. This is about Republicans never blowing an opportunity to blow an opportunity.
The visceral objections to Harriet Miers have more to do with the fact that many conservative activists have been toiling in the political trenches for many years to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate for the expressed purpose of being able to seat individuals on the nation's highest court who have the conservative judicial and intellectual star-power and brain-power we were denied by the Left when they "borked" Robert Bork.
The fact is, with Republican kiesters warming 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, a superior Bork-like nominee could have been confirmed to join Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Instead, we get...Harriet Miers?
We could have had filet mignon. Instead we got hamburger. We could have had Dom Perignon. Instead we got Pabst Blue Ribbon. We could have thrown a touchdown. Instead we ran it up the middle for a two-yard gain. And then to rub salt in this open wound, the president insulted the nation's collective intelligence by claiming, laughably, that he "picked the best person (he) could find." Perhaps he should have extended his search beyond arm's length.
It's not so much that Harriet Miers is "bad," but that we had an opportunity to do SO MUCH better.
There are only nine seats on the Supreme Court. Vacancies don't occur very often. Why settle for a second- or third-stringer when there were so many experienced, bona fide super-stars sitting on the bench waiting to get into the game? With the World Series on the line, why send an untested, inexperienced rookie to the mound when you have the likes of Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson at your disposal? This nomination is the sort of decision which would get a major league manager fired on the spot.
Nevertheless, there are still some GOP partisan loyalists out there who are blindly accepting the president's nomination on faith and disparaging anyone else who dares voice objection as not being a "team player" or a "true conservative." These Bushophiles need to wake up and smell the coffee.
For the record, here's just a partial list of prominent, bona fide, card-carrying conservatives who have expressed reservations, if not open hostility, to the Miers nomination over the past week:
Former Judge Robert Bork, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, columnist Charles Krauthammer, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, columnist George Will, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, columnist Thomas Sowell, columnist Mona Charen, former ACU executive director Richard Lessner, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), columnist Robert Novak, columnist Bruce Fein, columnist Peggy Noonan, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, columnist Terrence Jeffrey, columnist Michelle Malkin, the Wall Street Journal, Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Coalition, the Federalist Patriot, columnist David Limbaugh, Gary Bauer of American Values, Alan Keyes of Renew America, columnist Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
All of these people are wrong and the president is right? All of these people aren't "true conservatives"? All of these people aren't "team players"? Come on.
George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible. He made a mistake. But it's a mistake which can and should be rectified. The nation need not settle for second or third best with this lifetime appointment. President Bush should take a "mulligan," withdraw this nomination and appoint someone such as Judge Janice Rogers Brown instead.
Absent that, Ms. Miers should take herself out of the game -- for the good of the conservative movement and for the good of the nation.
(Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.)
All of these people aren't? I know, it's just grammar, but he might have tried "None of these people is." But then, he'd have probably written 'none of these people are.' Don't mind me.
A rabid pack of barking moonbats!!
This article is right on the money. Miers nomination should be withdrawn.
When pundits are elected President, I'll start paying attention to what they say. Until then, they need to put aside their hissy fit over Miers.
If the wings fit....
...you must commit. :)
??? Bork was a bullet we missed. He had serious 2nd. Amendment issues. The Left did the RKBA's a favor by blocking this cretin onto SCOTUS. On the SC bench, Robert Bork would have made Earl Warren seem like a conservative.
STHU..the base already supports having the hearings. You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and bombs like a dog we will all know at the heeeeaarrriinnggss.
Is that really your attitude? Is your most trusted source of information press releases appearing on the official White House web site? If you weren't interested in what informed, dedicated conservatives have to say, I don't think you'd be a member of FR in the first place.
As the author suggested, surely you don't think the President is infallible. Do you really believe Miers is the best person he could have chosen? Do you consider former Judge Robert Bork and sitting members of congress Brownback and Tancredo, whose names appeared on the list of those expressing doubts, to be mere "pundits"? Is absolute allegiance to a president a desirable trait for citizens in a democracry?
"STHU."
there's that love for the first amendment that "compassionate conservatives" love so much! if you dont like the contrarian point of view- DONT CLICK ON THE STORY!
again the whole "wait for the hearings" is a total smokescreen designed to stifle dissent. the hearings will NOT tell us anything-- she will invoke the ginsburg rule on matters that will appear before the court. and even if she DID answer the important questions--that still doesnt guarantee that she WOULD NOT drift leftward within 5-10 years.
so PLEASE, stop trying to shout down those who disagree!
Here is the bottom line. The President nominated Miers. It's his privilege to nominate her. OUR part of the job was done when we put him into office again in 2004. It's insulting to the President and undermines his authority to question his nominee and pretend to have enough knowledge about her to condemn her (and this is as much an attack on her as on the President) at this early date. The FACT of the matter is that you don't know enough about Miers and neither do any of the talking heads to make a truly informed opinion. This is just a childish temper tantrum.
The issue isn't Miers per se. The issue is that, in the context of the current Court and the abominable precendents it has set over the last 70 years, nominating anyone to SCOTUS who isn't clearly supremely able to fix what's wrong just won't do. Does Miers meet that requirement? If so, the case has yet to be made. I await the hearings.
Souter was nominated by George HW, Kennedy by Reagan
and Stevens by Ford. All have turned out to be disasters.
Don't you wish "pundits" had had a "hissy fit" then, or would you have demanded they remain silent, as you do now, so as not to undermine the president's "privilege"?
Until recently, it's been understood that we vote for Supreme court nominees when we cast our ballot for President. It's a little late in the game to start whining about it.
Do you think pundits have a roll in electing Presidents?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.